Might be best to divorce Charisma from everything mechanical and just have it be the new Comeliness.
And then EVERYONE will automatically put their lowest stat in Charisma (which is more or less what happens now except for specific classes). So you can't leave it a stat like the others; you'd have to let them roll or point-buy the 1st five stats totally separately from Charisma -- otherwise it's a "get out of bad stat free" card for everyone. At that point it would be better to simply remove it entirely and hand-wave it.
I'd rather try and recify the discrepancy than exacerbate it. I'm starting to think that Cha-based spell DCs for all classes, and Cha-based hero point effects might be the only way to salvage Charisma as a stat.
So in that case, what would Intimidate be based on?
If one wanted a more "realistic" approach, it probably should have two values / systems.
First is the "passive" value. This is probably best as a Will save by the "target / victim" based on Hit Dice / Level.
The second is an "active" attempt at intimidating, and that should be based off of Wisdom. That is because someone actually trying to scare someone works off of what they know of the person and reading them. (Sort of a pseudo-psychology.)
But I feel that makes things needlessly complex. Either / or should be fine on their own.
|
So you can't leave it a stat like the others; you'd have to let them roll or point-buy the 1st five stats totally separately from Charisma -- otherwise it's a "get out of bad stat free" card for everyone.
So you roll 4d6 5 times and arrange on the rest and then have one roll for Comeliness. Pretty simple to me.
So you roll 4d6 5 times and arrange on the rest and then have one roll for Comeliness. Pretty simple to me.
But why have it at all? I don't make people roll for hair color or background or place of origin or height or social class (although we used to do the latter) -- why roll dice for something that's totally intangible?
thanks kirth
I might use that name, although Kirthfinder is just do damned catchy.
What I will say on the Ability focus vs spell focus is this
you are right Spell focus shouldn't grant a +2 because ability focus only applies to one ability. Just keep in mind strike feats that scale are now harder to save against than most spells with this feat as they already use a much bigger bonus to start and this allows them to add a +2 on top of that. This is on purpose I realize, I just hope its possible for the casters to get their saves up high enough in the new system that all other classes aren't autosaving (not saying this will happen, I haven't even tested this aspect of the game yet really) because most classes get fairly good saves now along with class features and feats to bump saves. Now that magic gear isn't as much needed with all the goodies, very plausible.
Also
Did you not like the alchemist? I personally loved it (was working on a steampunky version of it with alternate Archetypes for exchanging spells and mutagens and stuff) but i would just like to hear your peace on why it didn't make the cut :)
But it's not intangible. It tells you how memorable you are. How people will react in general.
That's true if and only if we create a "reaction system" governed by the stat. Otherwise we're simply pretending that it has an effect, but mechanically it really doesn't.
Did you not like the alchemist? I personally loved it (was working on a steampunky version of it with alternate Archetypes for exchanging spells and mutagens and stuff) but i would just like to hear your peace on why it didn't make the cut :)
I'd allow one in-game without reservation -- or a Summoner, for that matter -- but I didn't see the point in modifying either class for the houserules yet, because neither I nor any of the players had any interest in them.
During the 1.0 playtesting, one of the original players ran a Runeblade (from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved) -- I had no problem allowing it, but it wasn't even on the radar until someone asked for it.
Point taken, it is just DM fiat if all you decide off of is the stat itself.
Exactly -- and that's fine for some groups, but personally I like to remove some of the fiat from my hands and let the players decide instead (thus the use of hero points instead of hidden DM dice-fudging). That's just an idiosyncratic hangup of mine.
LOL
How about BAB for martial characters, and Caster level for casters?
Wow, that makes a lot of sense, actually.
so, you penalize the bard, rogue and monk again? :)
I'd just like to point out that the iterative modifications you allowed already contribute to a great increase in damage, and the TH mods on top of this basically are going to easily put your dmg at 100% hit rates all the time, if done correctly. Not sure that's a very balanced way to go.
Natural Armor: Have it grant a +1 Enhancement bonus to Nat AC, scales with Endurance. Like the other stat boosters, it basically just replaces gold.
if you make the Int feat just a gold replacement Enhancement bonus, it's no more or less broken then buying a headband.
Other possible uses for Cha:
Set spell DC's for ALL casters. Dump Cha, enemies always resist you! It becomes a stat tax, as they'd need a 19 Cha to cast level 9 spells, so they'd have to start with a non-dumped Cha.
Set Bonus Spells castable for all casters (yes, a wizard could get spell slots!)
CHA is a low power stat because it doesn't have an active combat use for all classes, or universal benefits. To make it a power stat, you'd have to make it applicable to something that affects EVERYONE...not just smiting paladins, turning clerics, and spontaneous casters with a social skillset.
Spontaneous spellcasters are the base spellcasters. Wis and Int based casters are prestige classes (i.e. wizards are Sorcerors who use Int!)
==Aelryinth
Minor nitpick, our monks have Full BAB.
Full BAB, large immunities, and 5th level level undisruptable spells. They just grab DR and/or fast healing and/or defensive spells to boost their defenses. Naturally, if you don't look at the various ways to jack up defenses and allow stronger characters to protect weaker ones, then jacking up damage output will seem extremely unbalanced.
Rogues are glass cannons, intentionally. They hit hard, but are advised to flee thereafter. And bards now get 7th level spells, good ranged attacks, and a host of other abilities. I'm unconvinced that any of those three classes come out of these rules getting a "bad deal." Hopefully after actually looking at them you'll agree.
|
|
Something I noticed in reviewing my Book of Experimental Might copy, Monte rewrote toughness to give a virtual HD, as in, HP equal to class HD + Con, minimum three. He also had it boost for fighters at higher levels to add another ten. Think we should edit or add this feat to the list as well Kirth?
3 +1/level is pretty impressive all by itself. After 6th, better then any hit dice.
Giving characters a temporary hit point pool of some sort, however, is another view of that feat. Perhaps +1 Hit Die at the start of the day, +2 at later levels for Melees? All damage comes off them first, can't be healed, only regained by sleep.
===
I was joshing the use of BAB and caster level for Intimidate. If you have the ability to use Str for menace, then you know how to use Str so its menacing, even if you are dumb as a brick. If people know you'll casually break their arm without a thought, that's pretty intimidating. Looking ready to explode into violence is pretty intimidating to a lot of people, and strong people can look very intimidating. Remember that PC warriors look like weightlifters AND can fight like demons...you know, like Conan. I'd also like to point out that someone with a 3 str and 18 cha, to someone who only respects physical strength, is not going to be very intimidating to a lot of people unless he has more then skill points to back up a skill check.
============
It's a lot easier to overpower the offense as opposed to the defense. I'm not particularly concerned about the balance between classes insomuch as the balance with monsters. As it stands now, with 3 feats, I could pick up a +17 to hit. That's a +52 to hit to a melee with a 30 str and +5 weapon...meaning 100% hits on just about every monster out there while using full PA and iteratives. I'm not sure there's a core monster out there that can handle the level of feat upgrades modifying your basic numbers.
Don't get me wrong, I love the flexibility of things.
===Aelryinth
I was joshing the use of BAB and caster level for Intimidate. If you have the ability to use Str for menace, then you know how to use Str so its menacing, even if you are dumb as a brick. If people know you'll casually break their arm without a thought, that's pretty intimidating. Looking ready to explode into violence is pretty intimidating to a lot of people, and strong people can look very intimidating. Remember that PC warriors look like weightlifters AND can fight like demons...you know, like Conan. I'd also like to point out that someone with a 3 str and 18 cha, to someone who only respects physical strength, is not going to be very intimidating to a lot of people unless he has more then skill points to back up a skill check.
Your arguement that strength is a better representative for Intimidate to me is something I dont agree with. Lenny is a great example of a character with high strength and low charisma (Mice and Men).
You may think strength plays a factor, it might, but to say a person with 18 charisma isn't intimidating because he isn't strong is definitely not accurate. You can be intimidating with little leverage and just a bunch of lies. "Dont move! otherwise I will set off this bomb in my hand and we all go sky high!" "I wouldn't do that if I was you..." "Do you know who you are talking to?!?" "Careful you might want to stay away, I have been a carrier of the Pox for quite some time. Why do you think I am so weak?"
and the perfect example Wesley from Princess Bride. "Wrong! your ears you keep and Ill tell you why..." who was completely powerless at the time (effectively huge minuses for strength at the time)
Conan was charismatic, atleast I would say he undoubtedly was.
It's a lot easier to overpower the offense as opposed to the defense. I'm not particularly concerned about the balance between classes insomuch as the balance with monsters. As it stands now, with 3 feats, I could pick up a +17 to hit. That's a +52 to hit to a melee with a 30 str and +5 weapon...meaning 100% hits on just about every monster out there while using full PA and iteratives. I'm not sure there's a core monster out there that can handle the level of feat upgrades modifying your basic numbers.
Monsters are capable of taking feats too for one thing. Second Monsters often times get more Iterative natural attacks than any class, especially at lower levels.
Monsters were already good and the feats you can combine for a +17 to hit I would like to see because I read most of them and I am unaware of any combination granting that much of a boost. That's literally +6 +6 and +5... I have seen no such feats that really do any (unless at level 20 after much scaling)
Level 20 is not the intended play level for most of the games kirth made this system for, although I would find it FAR more playable at that level with this system than others.
I would recommend being more thoughtful in posting, kirth has worked very hard, and make sure your assessments of his system are very accurate or that you ask questions about why he chose to do something some way.
It is important to admire the whole painting before pointing to the inaccuracies of a stroke my friend. For example, monks now get more interative attacks than anyone (other than high level two weapon fighters).
Wow, that makes a lot of sense, actually.LOL
How about BAB for martial characters, and Caster level for casters?
If you made it the above I would recommend having Charisma thrown on. That makes it possible for everyone to be intimidating (thus making Rogues still a possible intimidator)
Although I can very well seeing being intimidating being more difficult to learn (thus requiring training or feats)
Are you talking to me? you talking to me? I SAID are you talking to me? Me? is that who your talking to?
to me it seems that people who actually attempt to intimidate actually TRY and PRACTICE to intimidate. Witty comebacks and guielful play that makes people shutter seems to be Charisma.
The best intimidator I can think of is probably The Dark Knight (this version of batman) he used his fearful charisma to make his opponents cry like 10 year olds. Sure he was strong but Batman definitely practiced being scary, it didn't just happen on accident.
just my thoughts on the matter.
For the ranger
Page 1 Class skills add (all) to Craft and Profession. Under favorable terrain the applicable skills are (athletics, perception, stealth, and survival) correct?
Table 2 You have a water (under surface) choice but not a plane of water choice, is there a reason for that? One could swap the underwater choice for the plane of water, both here and on page 7 and the only other change you would need is to put in Add Knowledge (planes) to terrain skills to the additional abilities column. For your plane astral, would you also include the ethereal and the plane of air? (I think the plane of air would fit the fly speed better and it is not really that hostile of plane). Under plane hostile would you clarify to Earth, fire, or any other aligned plane? Change profession (sailor) to profession (sailing), Darkvision 10 ft x “underground” terrain bonus correct?
Page 2 Clarify resist cold/heat's last sentence to “You also gain resistance to cold or fire (respectively) equal to 5 x your cold or desert favored terrain bonus.” Under Ignore Hostile Planar Effects would you add “you can breath normally when on the elemental plane of water” under your planar examples?
Page 4 the 4th level spells charm monster, elemental body I,and foebane are out of alphabetical order
Page 5 under Tireless, should the example not be after 2 hours of sleep rather than 3?
Page 6 under uncanny dodge, change the reference to hunter’s senses to perception check bonus. Additional favored terrain: familiarizing yourself to unfamiliar terrain means a terrain you do not have as a favored terrain right, not a favored terrain area you just have never been at before? Planar tracking, would you add the clause ”If you succeed at an initiative check opposed to the creature coming through the breach (if any), you can potentially move to its location and attack anything coming through it before it has time to react.”
Page 7 terrain dominance should be at 15th level not 14th level right? Under terrain dominance: plains it would give a +20 feet bonus total right (in other words the two bonuses stack right)?
Page 10 for the shifter both the 2nd level and 6th level bonus feats are beast shape I, is that to show that you get the ability twice a day at 6th level? It is confusing if that is the case. Under swashbuckler I could not find the responsive duelist, should it just be removed as a choice? Swift ambusher: the third sentence should say deal not deals.
Page 13 Under familiar, the 5th sentence should read “the familiar” not familiars. In the 7th sentence of under the familiar heading, change the reference of companion to familiar.
|
|
3 +1/level is pretty impressive all by itself. After 6th, better then any hit dice.
Well, doing the breakdown then:
Current Toughness: 3+X (X=level)
BoXM Toughness: 3+X+10 (X= HD + CON)
Now depending on if you roll the HD or take a fixed number in your game, and what level we decide to implement the +10, and how many classes get the +10, it could go either way.
Best case scenario: 23 vs 22 +CON (Max HD on Barbarian)
Worst case: 23 vs 13 (Minimum bonus) or 3 (Minimum bonus and no +10)
Rogues are glass cannons, intentionally. They hit hard, but are advised to flee thereafter. And bards now get 7th level spells, good ranged attacks, and a host of other abilities. I'm unconvinced that any of those three classes come out of these rules getting a "bad deal." Hopefully after actually looking at them you'll agree.
Just because you said this (and rogues are my favorite class, especially in your system) I am going to make a Rogue that can pwn without running away!!!
IN YOUR FACE KIRTH!
or wait... its your system... so .... in my face!?
soooo much flavor... gahhhhhhh.. chef of greatness...
I think Kirthfinder is a pretty cool guy. eh makes gaems fun and doesnt afraid of anything.
I would recommend being more thoughtful in posting, kirth has worked very hard, and make sure your assessments of his system are very accurate or that you ask questions about why he chose to do something some way.
All the hard work in the world is meaningless if the end product doesn't work -- in that case I'd have been better off sleeping in and reading Jack Reacher books or something. So critical feedback is valuable. That said, there are a lot of pieces of this system that work together in different ways than they did in 3.5/PF, which means that feedback not accounting for those differences simply has to be filtered a bit before it can be evaluated. Assessments need not be 100% accurate to be useful, in other words -- although of course the more it takes into account, the less filtering I have to do.
For the ranger
Awesome -- thank you! I'll address this tonight when I get home, but until then you're pretty much right on the money with your assumptions, as usual.
P.S. I'm embarrassed -- if my professional reports needed this much proofreading and clarification, I'd be out of a job. I hadn't realized the demarcation of "hobby" vs. "profession" made such a difference on my quality of work; I'll need to keep that in mind going forward.
No one's paying you and expecting top results.
It's a personal thing -- I want a top-quality product, or at some level I'll feel like I would have been better off working overtime and getting paid for it. In this case, the potential "payoff" is a more enjoyable game for me (and, I hope, for a handful of other people).
If nothing else, Kirth should get props for including page numbers in this version of his houserules. Not so much because it bothered me, but because I remember many times when we're trying to find an entry, and he lamented the lack of them. :)
I would recommend being more thoughtful in posting, kirth has worked very hard, and make sure your assessments of his system are very accurate or that you ask questions about why he chose to do something some way.All the hard work in the world is meaningless if the end product doesn't work -- in that case I'd have been better off sleeping in and reading Jack Reacher books or something. So critical feedback is valuable. That said, there are a lot of pieces of this system that work together in different ways than they did in 3.5/PF, which means that feedback not accounting for those differences simply has to be filtered a bit before it can be evaluated. Assessments need not be 100% accurate to be useful, in other words -- although of course the more it takes into account, the less filtering I have to do.
I quite agree.
That is why I try to analyze all aspects of certain things before I critique it. I apologize if that came out wrong but I merely meant that at an art show you dont critique the art until you have seen the whole painting and tried to understand it.
just encouraging thorough analysis ;)
If nothing else, Kirth should get props for including page numbers in this version of his houserules. Not so much because it bothered me, but because I remember many times when we're trying to find an entry, and he lamented the lack of them. :)
How true...
|
P.S. I'm embarrassed -- if my professional reports needed this much proofreading and clarification, I'd be out of a job. I hadn't realized the demarcation of "hobby" vs. "profession" made such a difference on my quality of work; I'll need to keep that in mind going forward.
Dont be, its incredibly difficult to proofread your own work, as I have found out on NUMEROUS occasions. :) Much respect to those who seem to be able to do it better than most!
I was joshing the use of BAB and caster level for Intimidate. If you have the ability to use Str for menace, then you know how to use Str so its menacing, even if you are dumb as a brick. If people know you'll casually break their arm without a thought, that's pretty intimidating. Looking ready to explode into violence is pretty intimidating to a lot of people, and strong people can look very intimidating. Remember that PC warriors look like weightlifters AND can fight like demons...you know, like Conan. I'd also like to point out that someone with a 3 str and 18 cha, to someone who only respects physical strength, is not going to be very intimidating to a lot of people unless he has more then skill points to back up a skill check.Your arguement that strength is a better representative for Intimidate to me is something I dont agree with. Lenny is a great example of a character with high strength and low charisma (Mice and Men).
You may think strength plays a factor, it might, but to say a person with 18 charisma isn't intimidating because he isn't strong is definitely not accurate. You can be intimidating with little leverage and just a bunch of lies. "Dont move! otherwise I will set off this bomb in my hand and we all go sky high!" "I wouldn't do that if I was you..." "Do you know who you are talking to?!?" "Careful you might want to stay away, I have been a carrier of the Pox for quite some time. Why do you think I am so weak?"
and the perfect example Wesley from Princess Bride. "Wrong! your ears you keep and Ill tell you why..." who was completely powerless at the time (effectively huge minuses for strength at the time)
Conan was charismatic, atleast I would say he undoubtedly was.
...
It's a lot easier to overpower the offense as opposed to the defense. I'm not particularly concerned about the balance between classes insomuch as the balance with monsters. As it stands now, with 3 feats, I could pick up a +17 to hit. That's a +52 to hit to a melee with
Lenny is very strong and doesn't know how to use his strength to intimidate people. but note that a lot of people are initially scared of Lenny because he's so big...like the farm owner.
Fred the loan shark's collection thug, is also strong, and knows how to use his strength to intimidate. His mere physical presence is going to totally unnerve some people. He just looks like he can and would rip you apart. When he leans over the desk, the shopkeeper has second thoughts about holding out.
Wesley's intimidate check is a pure bluff check. Fizzik made a classic intimidate check: "Fizzik, rip his arms off!" Swallow. "Oh, you mean THIS key?" and what kind of check do you think he was making when he was sitting on the wheelbarrow in the holocaust cloak? Heh. They picked the biggest guy cause he was the most intimidating! The Charisma guy can make an Intimidate check without anything to back it up. The Strength guy can make an Intimidate check because he CAN back it up...see the difference? You're somehow trying to justify that an implied threat that might be true is more effective then a real threat that IS true (and could happen right now)!
Or are you arguing Fizzik had great Charisma? Heheh.
The three feats that add up to +17 are Scything Blow, Deft Strike, and weapon Focus...+7, +7 and +3, respectively. The former two should be merged, and if AC bonuses stack so high that they are mandatory, then there's a balance issue at play. Yes, I know they are there to offset armor bonuses.
==Aelryinth
Also, Kirth, I believe you should allow Int as an enhancement bonus you can take with feats, just like all the other stats.
If you don't like the way it devalues a feat that grants skill points, that's probably a sign that the feat is too weak. A feat that grants +1 skill point/level is technically exactly equal to a feat that grants +1 hit point/level, if you go by your Favored Class example, no?
I suggest if you don't like mages getting free skill points for pumping their prime stat that you simply redo the skill points for all classes and remove the extra skill points from Int entirely. Give wizards 6 skill points a level, give fighters 4, and let people burn a feat if they want more.
But mages deserve bonus spells as much as sorcs do. Leaving Int out of the stat raises is pure bias, and you should work around it.
==Aelryinth
stuff about fizzik
so you dont think when Inyego said "fizzik tear his arms off" that it was HIS intimidate check? while I see your point I would say Fizzik was more of an Aid Another on Inyego. It was inyegos threat, not fizziks.
As for wesley being a pure bluff check? thats really not true at all. It was an intimidate check, the fact that he was lieing was just another check to make it possible.
Fizzik also when he pretends to be dear pirate roberts... yeah that is a blatant lie based on stuff that fizzik couldnt do, you know the whole speech he gave about being able to claim their souls? he didnt say I AM GOING TO STRENGTH YOU TO DEATH!
The fact that he was draped in a robe and covered in fire definitely didnt contribute to the bluff at all. Thats why they didnt send fizzik out front in the first place to scare everyone away. Wesley couldnt stand and inyego didnt have an intimidating voice.
I think perhaps being intimidating based on your person other than your charisma is more in respect to actual ranks in charisma. Fizzik definitely made the check as Dread pirate roberts, but the fire, convincing robe, wesleys idea, and them both push the wheel barrow to make him appear floating probably gave the bonuses needed to pull it off. Would you consider this a blatant bluff as well??
He wasnt charismatic, thats probably why vacini and inyego werent intimidated by him at all, and neither was wesley.
EDIT: This is not a thread I want to argue this on. Nor do I care enough to continue it further here, if you would like to make another thread I perhaps might join you but otherwise lets just respect this place for talking about Kirthfinder.
Personally I think intimidate should just be a character level check adding your highest attribute (people can have intimidating intelligence (outsmarting), dexterity (gunmen in the old west whirling pistols), constitution (burning a cigarette on your hand effortlessly), Wisdom (Sherlock Holmes. Nough said).
Scything Blow, Deft Strike
These can't stack, if you read the feat descriptions; the former applies only to slashing/piercing weapons held in both hands, the latter to finesse weapons (light or one-handed finessable).
But [wizards] deserve bonus spells as much as sorcs do. Leaving Int out of the stat raises is pure bias, and you should work around it.
Anti-wizard bias is built into these rules from the ground up. If you want a game in which they continue to dominate all other classes (except maybe the cleric), then play Paththfinder.
|
|
Scything Blow, Deft StrikeThese can't stack, if you read the feat descriptions; the former applies only to slashing/piercing weapons held in both hands, the latter to finesse weapons (light or one-handed finessable).
You may want to add a clause in Finesse that states 'a character wielding a weapon in two hands loses the Finesse ability', since things like scimitars are one-handed slashing finesse weapons, and thus can be wielded in two hands to qualify for both feats. See also: spiked chain, two-handed piercing finesse weapon. Latajang as well.
OK, some of the lame racial feats have been merged into the races.
Also, the Careful Speaker feat should have an additional prerequisite of 1 rank in Bluff; the bonuses should increase by an additional +1 per 5 ranks thereafter (maximum +5 at 16 ranks).
You may want to add a clause in Finesse that states 'a character wielding a weapon in two hands loses the Finesse ability', since things like scimitars are one-handed slashing finesse weapons, and thus can be wielded in two hands to qualify for both feats. See also: spiked chain, two-handed piercing finesse weapon. Latajang as well.
Or clarify the Deft Blow feat to specifically state "in one hand" (as was the intent). And probably an additional limitation could also be added: "This feat applies only to one weapon at a time, even if you are using more than one qualifying weapon."
|
But [wizards] deserve bonus spells as much as sorcs do. Leaving Int out of the stat raises is pure bias, and you should work around it.Anti-wizard bias is built into these rules from the ground up. If you want a game in which they continue to dominate all other classes (except maybe the cleric), then play Paththfinder.
I was going to say this, but I decided to let you do it. I know Fiacra doesn't feel anything like a "god wizard", and I like it. He just wishes that goofy half orc was still around, he's a little nervous about the stoutness of his companions...
I was going to say this, but I decided to let you do it. I know Fiacra doesn't feel anything like a "god wizard", and I like it. He just wishes that goofy half orc was still around, he's a little nervous about the stoutness of his companions...
Whaddya tryin' ta say?
Scything Blow, Deft Strike
Looking at the Scything Blow feat again, I see that I even included a note along the lines of "this is identical to Deft Strike, except that it applies only to two-handed weapons." That note should be a neon freaking sign spelling out to anyone who thinks about it that the two don't stack; ignoring it is a lot like trying to metamagic locate city into a nuclear weapon because the spell's range was mistakenly listed as the area of effect. (If you don't know what I'm talking about there, Google it or something.)
Remember that these houserules were written specifically for my home group. Anyone in that group who intentionally tried to force either of the above past me would no longer be invited. That's not to say that sloppy rules language that leads to genuine confusion should be tolerated -- it shouldn't. It does mean, however, that relatively unambiguous language shouldn't be wilfully twisted to mean things that it clearly doesn't mean.
I was going to say this, but I decided to let you do it. I know Fiacra doesn't feel anything like a "god wizard", and I like it. He just wishes that goofy half orc was still around, he's a little nervous about the stoutness of his companions...Whaddya tryin' ta say?
Orc meat shields are meatier than elven ones? As a fellow elf, you shouldn't be offended by such observations.
Of course, now I have to check this thread, the Egg of Coot profile and the disc to update all of the NPCs I converted from my homebrew. Oy, the agony! *back of hand to forehead*
Of course, 9/10 of the stuff on the thread and under the avatar is stuff no one will ever end up using...
If we got a HeroLab mod published I would seriously geek out.
Aren't you a computer expert? You could probably write a better ap yourself... I'm 99% certain that Jess could!
|
|
Of course, now I have to check this thread, the Egg of Coot profile and the disc to update all of the NPCs I converted from my homebrew. Oy, the agony! *back of hand to forehead*Of course, 9/10 of the stuff on the thread and under the avatar is stuff no one will ever end up using...
NPCs, man, NPCs. I get all crazy with the feats and stuff with the NPCs...